Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 594, November 7, 2010

"And you expect things to be different this time?"

Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Letters to the Editor

Bookmark and Share

Send Letters to
Note: All letters to this address will be considered for
publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication

[Letters to the editor are welcome on any and all subjects. Sign your letter in the text body with your name and e-mail address as you wish them to appear, otherwise we will use the information in the "From:" header!]

Letter from Paul Claussen

Letter from MamaLiberty a.k.a. Susan Callaway, with reply from A.X. Perez

Letter from Ernest Partisan

Letter from Neale Osborn

Letter from E.J. Totty

Another Letter from E.J. Totty

Any gun will do


Most of my adult life I have carried some sort of firearm, except for a very brief week in boot camp (Coast Guard) I had not taken any formal training. After 30 plus years, I decided to rectify the situation. A few days ago I returned home from my first 4 day defensive pistol class at Front Sight, which is about a hour east of Las Vegas.

Those four days were the most intense jam packed learning experience I have ever taken part in. I learned just how much I did not know. I am not going to itemize the laundry list of all I learned. However, one thing I did learn, Sight Alignment-Sight Picture-Trigger Control improved my groups. Before I was a fair shot, now I will claim at the least to be better. Also stressed was clearing type 1, 2 and 3 malfunctions. Which heretofore I knew nothing about.

Anyway, this is not a advert for Front Sight. I would just like to stress to folks, if you own a firearm for what ever reason that seems good to you. Get some training on how to use it and when. Early next year I plan on taking the 4 day defensive pistol class again and later in the year, 4 day rifle.

Paul Claussen

Can't get there from here

Re: "Letter from A.X. Perez"

Americans are tired of taxes that guarantee the power of the haves and impede the progress of those who would rise in social class. We are tired of drug laws that are written and enforced in such a way as to enrich criminals rather than to cure drug abuse. We are tired of weapons laws designed to disarm honest folk while doing nothing to disarm criminals. We are tired of civil rights laws enforced in such a way that they create racial hatred instead of racial harmony.

It is not possible for "laws" to accomplish any of it.

Taxes of any sort, for any reason, steal from some to benefit others. Always. It doesn't matter if any of them are poor or rich, or what their social status might be. Theft corrupts both the thief and the receiver of the stolen goods.

Laws against non-aggressive personal behavior, no matter how benevolent sounding, ALWAYS benefit criminals of every kind and have absolutely nothing to do with any "cure" for drug abuse, which is nobody else's business in the first place.

It is not possible for "weapons laws" to disarm the criminals because criminals do not obey laws!! The absolute law against aggression must first be enforced by the intended victim or their guardians. Two rounds to the body and one to the head is mighty good incentive to behave, but the simple will and ability to fight back is adequate in most cases.

And racial harmony can only come when people understand that they are perfectly free to feel, believe or express any sort of hatred they wish... while the object of such hate has every right to defend themselves against aggression—and nobody has a right to enforce their prejudice by the might of the state. It is not possible for more or different "laws" to change this. It can only be accomplished by destroying the power of the state.

I have not read about any politicians promoting this, not even "libertarians." When all is said and done, most libertarian politicians think they can run our lives and spend our money too—just maybe a little less, with extremely lofty intentions.

And THAT'S what far too few people truly "get."

a.k.a. Susan Callaway

To which A.X. Perez replied:

Of course you are absolutely correct. I merely point out what I perceive to be the thinking of most Americans. The law and taxes can not solve problems, but too many Americans do expect them to do so. At best the law can do is make sure no one interferes with people solving problems for themselves. Notice i said the law did not work as promised and that the American people are fed up with the harm law does instead of the good it promises.

A.X. Perez

To which MamaLiberty replied:

I do hope that's true, Albert... but I don't believe it for a minute. Until people are willing to accept personal responsibility for their choices and actions, safety and future, they will continue to look for politicians who will promise them whatever it is they think they need - and that includes liberty and justice—without ever understanding that they have to do it themselves in their own lives. It can't be done for them and the "law" can't "do good," regardless of what is promised.

THAT'S what they don't yet "get."

a.k.a. Susan Callaway

To which A.X. Perez replied:

Sooner or later the kiddos gotta grow up. They'll figure out there ain't no such thing as a benevolent master and embrace freedom. Until then we have to keep stompin' on massa's toes and force him to treat his 'dentured servants right. We did kill the voluntary slaveholders already and get the other's to switch to using 'dentured servants, right. Aw jeez, is my ammo bill about to go back up?

Remember there are many people who love freedom who still believe in the state and others who are trapped trying to force the state to be a tool to protect freedom. Think of the latter as the rearguard for those who learned the truth and the guardians at the gate for those who haven't figured out the truth.

A.X. Perez

Re: "My Tea Party" by L. Neil Smith


I have a small nit to pick with L N S—from years of reading his work I know he's a crusty, cranky, bastard likely to shoot back, but this simply can't slide.

"I find it particularly difficult to rely on or even take seriously the intellectual processes of any individual who denies the scientifically established truth of evolution by natural selection."

Sorry, El Neil, I deny it.

I know that you know better. This assertion is semantically and logically incorrect—"scientifically established truth" is semantically null—science establishes nothing.

Seat belts don't save lives—they are proven killers which have never been proven to save a single life. The statistical likelihood that they may sometimes be of benefit is far from "scientific proof" (note another null concept)! Though it makes for great propaganda for jackbooted thugs to rob people at gun point for their own good...

Climate change is a unremarkable fact, and man certainly affects his environment, but the "scientifically established truth of anthropogenic global warming" is crap. Until we can go back and document that without man and industry (at the same time, place, and conditions) that the climate would be soothingly, boringly consistent, it can't be suggested as likely, much less proven. Though the propaganda can be used to create a system of laws which will kill billions by starvation, disease, and malnutrition.

Science establishes nothing—except a disciplined system of seeking truth. Science does not "prove" anthropogenic climate change and it does not "prove" evolution, Darwinian or otherwise.

Had you used "theoretical and empirically supported theory of evolution by natural selection" you would have been more correct. Though there is little controversy about microevolution (adaptation of species to environmental change) which is observable and repeatable.

There remains substantial controversy about punctuated equilibrium, evolution of simians to hominids, primordial soup, the fossil record, etc. Until you can do it in a lab, repeatably, without anamoly, then there is much room for legitimate postulated theories including a creator god and alien visitation.

And no, I can prove neither a creator god or alien visitation in a lab and I don't claim that my creator god and his aliens are scientific truth. If you can disprove a creator god or alien visitors, then you may have a point. (Perhaps God let the aliens genetically engineer evolution???) But any postulate could have scientific validity in explaining observed facts.

In science, nothing is ever proven, and one contradictory fact can bring down generations of scientific or theological dogma.

Aside from that, not a bad screed—the tea parties are an exciting development. Just don't let your rejection of religion prejudice your logical faculties. But damn it man—ya oughta know better!

Ernest Partisan

Re: "Republicans Pledge to Obey the Constitution" by Paul Koning


IF they actually do "stop beating their wives", cool. But we all know that unless their wives (WE the People) don't kick their asses each and every time they pick up the belt, they not only won't stop, they will beat us worse and worse 'till there is no difference at all between them and the Democrats. Do not get me wrong, I do not think ther actually IS much difference now, but even that is doomed to disappear if they don't get reined in. Personally, I think it would be wonderful if they not only DID cite their Constitutional authority for each and every bill they pass. But what would REALLY impresss the hell out of THIS pissed off American is if they started going through the (literally) tons of bills already passed) and began repealing every one that was not within their Constitutional purview. Now THAT would be a pledge I'd like.

They can start with 90+% of taxes, then move on to gun laws, and then go on to the rest of the crap. I don't know if they will even keep their word to their TEA Party co-party members. I certainly hope they do, but hopes aren't something I can pin the future of our country on. So I certainly intend to watch them closely, and toast their feet with blowtorches every time they stray. If you don't have one, let me know, I'll loan you one!!

Neale Osborn

Your argument is COMPLETELY defunct

Re: "The Great Milk Robbery" by Anthony Shelley

You would have the rest of us believe that theft is perfectly okay, as long as you might get away with that.

Well, that goes for rape (theft), and murder too.

Are you still willing to validate your philosophy on those counts as well?

I can't wait to see how you justify your ideals.

And by the way: Harry Brown was a freaking looser if ever there were one!

Thank the lucky stars in whatever Heaven that he was NEVER elected!

E.J. Totty

Re: "IP/No-IP remarks" by Warren Tilson


Your suggestion works ONLY where honor is seen as utmost in the minds of the people.

At any time it is considered 'acceptable' to steal from anyone, regardless the situation, then honor has no place.

E.J. Totty


Rational Review
Rational Review

Rational Review News Digest
Rational Review News Digest

Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates.
We cheerfully accept donations!

Big Head Press